The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Heard an interesting statement on the shootings in Aurora. Apparently the twelve deaths in the shooting represent just half the average day's worth of gun related deaths in the United States; "today is the rule, disguised as the exception."

Strangelove wrote:If even a handful of those movie-goers were packing... lives could have been saved.

Just sayin....

The guy was wearing a bullet proof vest wasn't he?

Seems like a much simpler solution than hoping that the American populace arm themselves to the teeth and that someone in every crowd is well trained enough to shoot someone in the face in the dark from a distance under incredible duress.. would be to just make it harder for people to buy assault rifles.

Strangelove wrote:If even a handful of those movie-goers were packing... lives could have been saved.

Just sayin....

The guy was wearing a bullet proof vest wasn't he?

Seems like a much simpler solution than hoping that the American populace arm themselves to the teeth and that someone in every crowd is well trained enough to shoot someone in the face in the dark from a distance under incredible duress.. would be to just make it harder for people to buy assault rifles.

Strangelove wrote:
If even a handful of those movie-goers were packing... lives could have been saved.

Just sayin....

The guy was wearing a bullet proof vest wasn't he?

Seems like a much simpler solution than hoping that the American populace arm themselves to the teeth and that someone in every crowd is well trained enough to shoot someone in the face in the dark from a distance under incredible duress..

I wouldn't think twas so dark in there necessarily Dave (the movie was lighting the place up to a certain degree).

Some folks were playing dead as this psycho stepped around/over them, so the opportunity was there for someone with a handgun to pop up and pop a few bullets in his head (when his gun jammed or he had to stop to reload).

Just sayin....

dbr wrote:
make it harder for people to buy assault rifles.

His assault rifle jammed Dave (good time to pop a few in his cranium wot?) so he had to switch to his shotgun.

He continued murdering the good citizens of Aurora with said shotgun (and perhaps a glock).

Point is, psychos will continue to find ways to slaughter the innocent with or without assault rifles.

I humbly submit the answer is to arm the people (hi Spidey).

I suggest government-sponsored training to help good citizens respond better whilst "under duress".

Strangelove wrote:If even a handful of those movie-goers were packing... lives could have been saved.

Just sayin....

The guy was wearing a bullet proof vest wasn't he?

Seems like a much simpler solution than hoping that the American populace arm themselves to the teeth and that someone in every crowd is well trained enough to shoot someone in the face in the dark from a distance under incredible duress.. would be to just make it harder for people to buy assault rifles.

Ok that's stupid!

You wouldn't have to hit him in the face.

Strangelove is 100% correct. Had a few people in the crowd been armed and had they started shooting back we could easily assume the psycho would, if nothing else, been distracted. Body armor or none, you're not gonna stand there and take hits. Lives would have been saved had the audience been able to return fire. That isn't open for debate.

Well to be perfectly honest I did not read any play by play of what went down in the theatre.

And yes.. someone on a homicidal rampage is still going to be able to do a lot of damage without an assault rifle, maybe as much as this - duh, individual - did depending on when his jammed.. I still maintain that prohibiting access to them would be sensible.

As for the notion that one ought to take a gun to the movie theatre just in case..

Hell, maybe it's even true in the States.

( )

Speaking of guns, apparently this guy had his membership to a local shooting range rejected due to "bizarre" behaviour.. If we're in favour of government arming and training the public maybe they could keep an eye on people unfit to shoot a gun under controlled circumstances while they're at it.

Strangelove wrote:If even a handful of those movie-goers were packing... lives could have been saved.

Just sayin....

The guy was wearing a bullet proof vest wasn't he?

Seems like a much simpler solution than hoping that the American populace arm themselves to the teeth and that someone in every crowd is well trained enough to shoot someone in the face in the dark from a distance under incredible duress.. would be to just make it harder for people to buy assault rifles.

Ok that's stupid!

You wouldn't have to hit him in the face.

Strangelove is 100% correct. Had a few people in the crowd been armed and had they started shooting back we could easily assume the psycho would, if nothing else, been distracted. Body armor or none, you're not gonna stand there and take hits. Lives would have been saved had the audience been able to return fire. That isn't open for debate.

DEBATE:

Most people who carry or don't carry a gun have no clue how to load, shoot or clean a gun and are fucking cowards....

Just because you watch TV or a movie or play a video game does not mean you know how to use a gun. Try shooting a deer and then cleaning it for meat....then we'll talk....otherwise shut the fuck up.....

Most people who carry or don't carry a gun have no clue how to load, shoot or clean a gun and are fucking cowards....

Just because you watch TV or a movie or play a video game does not mean you know how to use a gun. Try shooting a deer and then cleaning it for meat....then we'll talk....otherwise shut the fuck up.....

What does shooting and cleaning a deer have to do with the fact the gunman wouldn't have been able to randomly shoot at people had the crowd been armed and been shooting back?

I'm not saying it's the way it should be. In a perfect world the ATF has a way to track who is purchasing weapons and ammunition and body armor and gas grenades… The authorities should intervene before said “incident” occurs.

Doc is correct... technically. Had some in the crowd had guns it's easy to conclude fewer people would have been killed and injured. Obviously the last thing you want in a crowed theater is a gun fight. Strike that, the second last thing you want is a gun fight. The first thing would be a psycho massacring movie goers.